Wed Sep 03 13:58:02 UTC 2025: Here’s a summary and a news article based on the provided text:
**Summary:**
The Supreme Court of India heard arguments from opposition-ruled states (West Bengal, Karnataka, and Himachal Pradesh) regarding the powers of Governors to withhold assent to State Bills. The states argued that Governors should be compelled to act on Bills promptly, in line with the will of the people, rather than delaying or effectively vetoing legislation through inaction. They emphasized that Governors should not question the constitutionality of bills once re-passed, and that the power to assent is not a discretionary choice but a constitutional route. Arguments were made referencing constitutional articles and historical context, asserting that Governors are bound by the aid and advice of the state government, and should not create conflict. The hearing is part of a Presidential Reference before a five-judge bench.
**News Article:**
**Opposition States Challenge Governor’s Power Over State Bills in Supreme Court**
**NEW DELHI, September 3, 2025** – A coalition of opposition-ruled states today challenged the extent of Governors’ powers to withhold assent from State Bills before the Supreme Court. West Bengal, Karnataka, and Himachal Pradesh argued that the current system allows Governors to effectively stall legislation, undermining the democratic process.
During a hearing before a five-judge Presidential Reference Bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, lawyers representing the states argued that the constitutional provision requiring Governors to return a Bill “as soon as possible” should be interpreted as “forthwith” or “immediately.”
“Bills cannot wait,” asserted Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing West Bengal. He stated that Governors shouldn’t question the constitutionality of State Bills, and are bound to grant assent if the legislature re-passes them. Later, citizens can challenge bills in court if they are unconstitutional.
Karnataka, represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, argued that allowing Governors excessive discretion would undermine the legislative powers of State Assemblies. He emphasized that “Governors have to act under the aid and advice of the State government. Governance cannot happen in a constant state of conflict or threat of conflict,”
Anand Sharma, advocate for one of the states and a former Union Minister, further illustrated this point saying “Even to summon the Parliament, the President is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.”
The arguments come amidst growing concerns over the role of Governors in states ruled by parties opposed to the central government. This case is expected to have significant implications for the balance of power between states and the Union government.
First Piper 